Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5668/JEHS.2022.48.3.159

Applicability of QSAR Models for Acute Aquatic Toxicity under the Act on Registration, Evaluation, etc. of Chemicals in the Republic of Korea  

Kang, Dongjin (Chemicals Registration & Evaluation Team, Risk Assessment Division, Environmental Health Research Department, National Institute of Environmental Research)
Jang, Seok-Won (Chemicals Registration & Evaluation Team, Risk Assessment Division, Environmental Health Research Department, National Institute of Environmental Research)
Lee, Si-Won (Chemicals Registration & Evaluation Team, Risk Assessment Division, Environmental Health Research Department, National Institute of Environmental Research)
Lee, Jae-Hyun (Chemicals Registration & Evaluation Team, Risk Assessment Division, Environmental Health Research Department, National Institute of Environmental Research)
Lee, Sang Hee (Chemicals Registration & Evaluation Team, Risk Assessment Division, Environmental Health Research Department, National Institute of Environmental Research)
Kim, Pilje (Chemicals Registration & Evaluation Team, Risk Assessment Division, Environmental Health Research Department, National Institute of Environmental Research)
Chung, Hyen-Mi (Chemicals Registration & Evaluation Team, Risk Assessment Division, Environmental Health Research Department, National Institute of Environmental Research)
Seong, Chang-Ho (Chemicals Registration & Evaluation Team, Risk Assessment Division, Environmental Health Research Department, National Institute of Environmental Research)
Publication Information
Journal of Environmental Health Sciences / v.48, no.3, 2022 , pp. 159-166 More about this Journal
Abstract
Background: A quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) model was adopted in the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH, EU) regulations as well as the Act on Registration, Evaluation, etc. of Chemicals (AREC, Republic of Korea). It has been previously used in the registration of chemicals. Objectives: In this study, we investigated the correlation between the predicted data provided by three prediction programs using a QSAR model and actual experimental results (acute fish, daphnia magna toxicity). Through this approach, we aimed to effectively conjecture on the performance and determine the most applicable programs when designating toxic substances through the AREC. Methods: Chemicals that had been registered and evaluated in the Toxic Chemicals Control Act (TCCA, Republic of Korea) were selected for this study. Two prediction programs developed and operated by the U.S. EPA - the Ecological Structure-Activity Relationship (ECOSAR) and Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.) models - were utilized along with the TOPKAT (Toxicity Prediction by Komputer Assisted Technology) commercial program. The applicability of these three programs was evaluated according to three parameters: accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. Results: The prediction analysis on fish and daphnia magna in the three programs showed that the TOPKAT program had better sensitivity than the others. Conclusions: Although the predictive performance of the TOPKAT program when using a single predictive program was found to perform well in toxic substance designation, using a single program involves many restrictions. It is necessary to validate the reliability of predictions by utilizing multiple methods when applying the prediction program to the regulation of chemicals.
Keywords
Acute fish toxicity; acute invertebrate toxicity; QSAR; Act on Registration; Evaluation; etc. of Chemicals;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Di Marzio W, Saenz ME. Quantitative structure-activity relationship for aromatic hydrocarbons on freshwater fish. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2004; 59(2): 256-262.   DOI
2 Hrovat M, Segner H, Jeram S. Variability of in vivo fish acute toxicity data. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2009; 54(3): 294-300.   DOI
3 Pradeep P, Povinelli RJ, White S, Merrill SJ. An ensemble model of QSAR tools for regulatory risk assessment. J Cheminform. 2016; 8: 48.   DOI
4 Zuriaga E, Giner B, Valero MS, Gomez M, Garcia CB, Lomba L. QSAR modelling for predicting the toxic effects of traditional and derived biomass solvents on a Danio rerio biomodel. Chemosphere. 2019; 227: 480-488.   DOI
5 Cronin MT. (Q)SARs to predict environmental toxicities: current status and future needs. Environ Sci Process Impacts. 2017; 19(3): 213-220.   DOI
6 Kim HK, Kim JY, Park MY, Sung CH, Doo YK, Ki PJ. A Study on Structural Alerts and Application of (Q)SARs for Mutagenicity Screening. Incheon: National Institute of Environmental Research; 2011.
7 Ministry of Environment. Toxic Chemicals Control Act, Rep. Sejong: Ministry of Environment; 2012.
8 Dearden J. Prediction of environmental toxicity and fate using quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs). J Braz Chem Soc. 2002; 13(6): 754-762.   DOI
9 Kim J, Seo J, Kim T, Kim HK, Park S, Kim PJ. Prediction of human health and ecotoxicity of chemical substances using the OECD QSAR application toolbox. J Environ Health Sci. 2013; 39(2): 130-137.   DOI
10 Melnikov F, Kostal J, Voutchkova-Kostal A, Zimmerman JB, Anastas PT. Assessment of predictive models for estimating the acute aquatic toxicity of organic chemicals. Green Chem. 2016; 18: 4432-4445.   DOI
11 Netzeva T, Worth A. Classification of Phthalates According to Their (Q)SAR Predicted Acute Toxicity to Fish: A Case Study. Ispra: European Commission Directorate General Joint Research Centre; 2007.
12 US EPA. Ecological Structure-Activity Relationships Program (ECOSAR) Methodology Document v2.0. Available: https://epa.gov/tsca-screening-tools/ecological-structure-activity-relationships-program-ecosar-methodology-document [accessed 8 April 2019].
13 Moore DR, Breton RL, MacDonald DB. A comparison of model performance for six quantitative structure-activity relationship packages that predict acute toxicity to fish. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2003; 22(8): 1799-1809.   DOI
14 Cappelli CI, Cassano A, Golbamaki A, Moggio Y, Lombardo A, Colafranceschi M, et al. Assessment of in silico models for acute aquatic toxicity towards fish under REACH regulation. SAR QSAR Environ Res. 2015; 26(12): 977-999.   DOI
15 Schuurmann G, Ebert RU, Kuhne R. Quantitative read-across for predicting the acute fish toxicity of organic compounds. Environ Sci Technol. 2011; 45(10): 4616-4622.   DOI
16 US EPA. User's Guide for T.E.S.T. 2016, Ver.4.2. Available: https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/toxicity-estimation-software-tool-test [accessed 8 April 2019].
17 Ferrari T, Lombardo A, Benfenati E. QSARpy: a new flexible algorithm to generate QSAR models based on dissimilarities. The log Kow case study. Sci Total Environ. 2018; 637-638: 1158-1165.   DOI
18 Schultz TW. Relative toxicity of para-substituted phenols: log KOW and pKa-dependent structure-activity relationships. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 1987; 38(6): 994-999.   DOI
19 Tunkel J, Mayo K, Austin C, Hickerson A, Howard P. Practical considerations on the use of predictive models for regulatory purposes. Environ Sci Technol. 2005; 39(7): 2188-2199.   DOI
20 Ministry of Environment. Act on Registration, Evaluation, ETC. of Chemicals. Sejong: Ministry of Environment; 2018.
21 Pizzo F, Lombardo A, Manganaro A, Benfenati E. In silico models for predicting ready biodegradability under REACH: a comparative study. Sci Total Environ. 2013; 463-464: 161-168.   DOI
22 Ock HS. Developing trend of QSAR modeling and pesticides. Korean J Pestic Sci. 2011; 15(1): 68-85.
23 Lozano S, Lescot E, Halm MP, Lepailleur A, Bureau R, Rault S. Prediction of acute toxicity in fish by using QSAR methods and chemical modes of action. J Enzyme Inhib Med Chem. 2010; 25(2): 195-203.   DOI
24 de Roode D, Hoekzema C, de Vries-Buitenweg S, van de Waart B, van der Hoeven J. QSARs in ecotoxicological risk assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2006; 45(1): 24-35.   DOI
25 Khan K, Khan PM, Lavado G, Valsecchi C, Pasqualini J, Baderna D, et al. QSAR modeling of Daphnia magna and fish toxicities of biocides using 2D descriptors. Chemosphere. 2019; 229: 8-17. Erratum in: Chemosphere. 2019; 237: 124397.   DOI
26 Golbamaki A, Cassano A, Lombardo A, Moggio Y, Colafranceschi M, Benfenati E. Comparison of in silico models for prediction of Daphnia magna acute toxicity. SAR QSAR Environ Res. 2014; 25(8): 673-694.   DOI
27 Sung CH, Park SY, Choi YS, Kim HK, Sung MH, Moon SA, et al. Study on the Improvement of Genotoxicity Prediction Using QSARs Models. Incheon: National Institute of Environmental Research; 2017.
28 Kim KY, Shin SE, No KT. Assessment of quantitative structure-activity relationship of toxicity prediction models for Korean chemical substance control legislation. Environ Health Toxicol. 2015; 30 Suppl: s2015007.
29 Reuschenbach P, Silvani M, Dammann M, Warnecke D, Knacker T. ECOSAR model performance with a large test set of industrial chemicals. Chemosphere. 2008; 71(10): 1986-1995.   DOI
30 Devillers J, Mombelli E, Samsera R. Structural alerts for estimating the carcinogenicity of pesticides and biocides. SAR QSAR Environ Res. 2011; 22(1-2): 89-106.   DOI
31 Kim HK, Kim JY, Cha HK, Park MY, Sung CH, Kim PJ. Study on the Best Application of (Q)SARs to Predict Aquatic Toxicity of Organic Chemicals. Incheon: National Institute of Environmental Research; 2010.
32 Sung CH, Park SY, Lee JW, Kim PJ, Yu SD, Sung MH, et al. A Study for the Improvement of a Prediction Using QSAR Models to Find Out Hazardous Substances(I). Incheon: National Institute of Environmental Research; 2018.
33 Kim J, Choi K, Kim K, Kim D. QSAR approach for toxicity prediction of chemicals used in electronics industries. J Environ Health Sci. 2014; 40(2): 105-113.   DOI
34 Burden N, Maynard SK, Weltje L, Wheeler JR. The utility of QSARs in predicting acute fish toxicity of pesticide metabolites: a retrospective validation approach. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2016; 80: 241-246.   DOI
35 Lee JW, Park S, Jang SW, Lee S, Moon S, Kim H, et al. Toxicity prediction using three quantitative structure-activity relationship(QSAR) programs (TOPKAT®, Derek®, OECD toolbox). J Environ Health Sci. 2019; 45(5): 457-464.   DOI
36 BIOVIA. Predictive Toxicology in Discovery Studio, Accelrys. Available: http://www.accelrys.com [accessed 12 April 2019].
37 Rorije E, Loonen H, Muller M, Klopman G, Peijnenburg WJ. Evaluation and application of models for the prediction of ready biodegradability in the MITI-I test. Chemosphere. 1999; 38(6): 1409-1417.   DOI
38 Talapatra SN, Konar S. Predictive acute toxicity comparison in Daphnia magna for common organic chemicals present in cosmetics by using two QSAR modeling softwares. World Sci News. 2016; 42: 101-118.
39 Sung CH, Park SY, Kim KT, Kim KH, Sung MH, Moon SA, et al. Study on the Improvement of Mutagenicity Prediction Using QSAR Models. Incheon: National Institute of Environmental Research; 2016.
40 Sheffield TY, Judson RS. Ensemble QSAR modeling to predict multispecies fish toxicity lethal concentrations and points of departure. Environ Sci Technol. 2019; 53(21): 12793-12802.   DOI